You can’t tell a book…
This blog is about Obama Conspiracy Theories–but you knew that. With some web sites, it’s not so obvious. For example:
The Federalists were founders of our country like George Washington, and John Marshall. The were in favor of a larger role for the federal government compared to the Republicans (or Democrat-Republicans) such as Thomas Jefferson who was an ardent supporter of states rights. However, The Federalist Blog is anything but Federalist, arguing for example that the Federal government lacks the power of eminent domain within a state. I mention this blog because it’s principal author (and I guess owner) P. A. Madison argues against natural born citizenship for the children of non-citizen immigrants like President Obama.
A Place to Ask Questions To Get the Right Answers
One might think this was a web site akin to Yahoo Answers, or Ask.com. But it is actually a web site devoted publicizing the views of the Kerchner v. Obama lawsuit. While opinion may vary, I think this is not the place to get the right answers on the topics it covers.
Rather than being related to defense of freedom, this web site collects and publishes articles critical of President Obama.
This web site is not really the web site of a grand jury, but another birther site.
One might think this related to personal and family security, how to keep burglars out of your house. It’s not. It is a right-wing web site that publishes birther information. It’s more about linking Obama to Bill Ayers than anything to do with security.
More accurately, this might be God Save America from President Obama. It’s a front for the “citizen grand jury movement”.
I contrast these web sites with ones whose titles leave no question as to their content: Obama Crimes, Stop-Obama, Obama Waffles, and Nigger Obama. Links to these web sites on my bookmarks page.
Craig v US appeal denied by Circuit Court
Craig v US
The United States District Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit affirmed yesterday (August 5, 2009) the lower court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit Craig v. United States of America, although it returned the case to the lower to correct the dismissal to “without prejudice” which means the suit could be refiled.
As explained by the district court, Mr. Craig’s first complaint and his proposed amended complaint—as well as his motion for declaratory judgment and
motion for class certification—primarily addressed the alleged distinction between the rights of citizenship that attach to naturalized citizens and those that attach to natural-born citizens. Mr. Craig asserted that he, as a “Legacy,” or natural-born citizen, suffered from discrimination due to “exclusion of distinctions” and “omission of acknowledgement” due to Congress’s failure to enact laws recognizing this distinction, whereas it has enacted laws defining the requirements to become a naturalized citizen…. Mr. Craig thus sought redress in the form of a declaratory judgment defining “natural born Citizen,” as it appears in art. II, § 1, cl. 4 of the Constitution, and providing a means for citizens bearing that moniker to obtain certification of that fact from the federal government, as well as punitive damages….Even liberally construed, Mr. Craig’s claim is not grounded in a constitutional or federal question: there is no such “right” (a) to have courts adopt his proffered legal definition, (b) to be classified as a citizen pursuant to that definition, or (c) to obtain certification of the status he attempts to define.
The court then cited a previous Supreme Court decision (which, as is often the case, uses “native born” and “natural born” interchangeably):
We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.
Note that Craig had previously appealed to the Supreme Court while the appeal was pending and is scheduled to be discussed on September 29, 2009.
